A Twitter tag #JaiKisan is attempting to educate Indians on the realities and conditions of farmers in India. Farmers produce the country's food. They purchase inputs at retail prices, sell produce at wholesale prices. Unlike a lot of products, farm produce is relatively short lived and takes a long time to grow. A crash in prices basically means doom, because they have already invested in the produce. The reasons for their losses are many and varied. From the vagaries of nature to corruption depriving them of irrigation. From failed crops to bumper harvests with no value because demonetisation has sucked all the money out of the market. This year we saw excellent harvests of tomatoes post a good monsoon being dumped on the streets or cut down as they stood ready for harvest, because there wasn't enough money in the market and prices had crashed so badly, that even transporting them to markets for selling was a loss making venture.

There are other oddities and absurdities you will notice on the #JaiKisan tag. Take for instance Tuvar dal with an MSP of Rs5050/Qt when the input Cost is Rs6403/Qt. Not only is this loss making by design, the farmers actually got only Rs4200/Qt resulting in a loss of Rs2200/Qt. On the other hand, India imported 28 lakh tonnes of tuvar dal at Rs 10114/Qt. The input cost for wheat is Rs 1943/Qt, while the farmer got Rs 1525 - resulting in a LOSS of Rs. 418/Qt!!! Where is the sense in this? Why couldn't the government purchase from farmers at fair prices that covered at least input costs and ideally at least some profit, when they were willing to spend foreign reserves to buy for much higher prices? There are no answers.

This is particularly brutal for small farmers, who have to live on the profits off much smaller land. Is it any wonder then that over 72% of farmer suicides are among small farmers with less than 2 hectares of land? One would think that small farms are inefficient and therefore they are making losses, but that is not true, research after research has shown that small farms are actually between 200% to 1000% more productive than large farms in terms of harvest per area around the world. The problem lies in the greater productivity being over a smaller area, and thus not amounting to large enough profit in total. Yet small farms are clearly the answer if we wish to have maximum productivity from available land!

"Jai jawan, jai kisan" was a powerful slogan by then Prime Minister of India Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965 at a public gathering at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi. Today, the average income of an Indian farmer is around Rs. 6,400. What sort of life can a person afford with that kind of income? Is it any surprise that India is losing farmers at a rate of about 2000 farmers a day leaving the occupation nationwide?

All this boils down to policies. We seem to have lost a holistic view of what sustainability means to a country. The only time policy makers appear to pay attention to the plight of farmers seems to be when it is time to get votes. Then you have big promises and loan waivers. But the story of loan waivers too is not what it seems. While the perception of agricultural credit is that it would go to farmers, agricultural credit is for the agricultural sector. Farmers get maybe 35% of it, the rest going to industries and businesses related to the agricultural sectors, or as P. Sainath puts it, "the starving farmers of Malabar hill (an elite locality in Mumbai)". Most small farmers find it extremely difficult to get loans from the bank, even when they have the required documents, Others cannot get the loans when they don't own the land they cultivate (no collateral). This drives most farmers to seek loans from informal money lenders, even, in many cases money lenders taking loans from a bank and forwarding them to farmers at higher interest rates! Thus, farm loan waivers amount to maybe 35% of the waivers going to farmers, with the rest going to businesses and industries that are not in distress, while having no impact on the crippling loans taken from moneylenders (though the money lender may get a waiver if they took the agricultural loan from a bank to lend at higher rate).

There has always been a lack of foresight in our approach to agriculture. Influenced by large industries and what they wish to sell rather than listening to the person working the soil. The "Green Revolution" that relied heavily on chemical fertilizers brought a period of bounty that led to heavily depleted soil that cannot produce without heavy applications of fertilizers. The chemical damage to soil ecology, the contamination of ground water from the chemical runoff, the thoughtless push of GM crops like Bt Cotton (which requires more water than regular cotton) in places with depleting groundwater tables and dependent on scant rainfall.... All this has resulted in long term damage to the viability of agriculture and the economic sustainability of farmers. We are not able to see solutions beyond magic wands waved for votes.

Consider the absurdity of pushing GM crops when they have not proved as beneficial to small farms. All that it has resulted in is more resistant pests in return for some short term increase in production, that is already dwindling. On the other hand, the government is also pushing organic farming to prove some utility for cattle manure. Here is the deal. Organic farming depends on a robust ecology of the soil and surroundings with natural checks and balances that enable thriving crops. GM crops are accompanied with heavy doses of fertilizers, herbicides and as the resistant pests increase, pesticides as well - these destroy naturally abundant life forms that are necessary for organic farming. Pushing both at the same time basically squashes the farmer between two completely incompatible methods of growing crops. One from big industry influence, the other for ideological justification. Who pays the price? It is the cultivator, forced to stand with one foot on two stones, becaue while he may choose one method or the other, the ground water or pests do not understand boundaries indicating ownership of land and other cultivators may be making other choices.

This is but the tip of the iceberg. What is needed at this time is to ensure that farmers have an income they can live on - particularly where food crops are discouraged by the government in favor of cash crops that are at the mercy of market prices and cannot be consumed by the farmer for survival, regardless of the gamble with nature. There is a need to ensure irrigation on a war footing. There is a need to ensure low input costs and better sale prices. There is a need for an agricultural vision that is grounded strongly in research and making the country food sufficient and not dependent on imports to meet nutritional needs. There is a need to improve the capacity for food processing and storage with farmers so that they are not forced to sell at low rates for fear of perishability.

But all this needs a government with a vision. It needs citizens with voice interested in where their food comes from, and what the risks are, if that system is breaking down. in my view, the #JaiKisan tag serves this educational purpose in a time where agitating farmers from Tamil Nadu are protesting in increasingly desperate ways - sitting with skulls of farmers who committed suicide, eating rats, drinking urine, eating food served on the road and worse - with complete disinterest from a government that always makes a big show of concern for farmers when it comes to seeking votes.

I urge you all to read the content on the tag #JaiKisan and educate yourselves. The future food security of your children could well depend on it. The current survival of your food growers does depend on it. Happy next meal.

Today, we have become so comfortable with blinkers, that we are uncomfortable with unlimited possibility. We need one aspect to evaluate and we need to arrive at a clear conclusion. Multiple perspectives bother us, particularly if they don't lead to same conclusions. Conclusions that need a trade off bother us - we have been conditioned to feel humiliated by less than perfection.

Some examples:

Government distributed bubblewrap instead of blankets to save money and prevent sale for money leading to people still shivering in the cold. People saw it as an insult to the poor to be given a cheap alternative. Questions about where the tax money goes, insults to the government about wrapping them in bubblewrap, etc. Predictable.

But there are actually a gazillion things to consider before deeming this appropriate or inappropriate. Does it work? Will it last the winter or how often will it need replacing - too frequent replacing will mean no savings or possibly greater expense? What about the environment (plastic)? What about windy conditions? What about younger people who may suffocate? And so on. An overall conclusion needs much thought.

This is a relatively low impact conclusion. The recent debate on the FDI in Retail is one where the debate was clearly on one track - economic opportunity. Dissent was about lack of opportunity. But what about social implications, political implications? Impact on rich poor divide, unemployment, lack of accountability in privatization, abdication of reform, quality control, examples of the impact of big retails in other places....?

The nuclear reactor protests, dam protests, whatever. Most debates follow one established track, form opposing camps, get flatlined by stalemate.

Creative solutions are the need of the hour. And creative solutions don't happen from banging head on wall. There is an art in knowing when to flow around obstacles, when to compromise, and when to pick a battle to fight. That art lives in an agile mind, free to think in diverse ways, interested in thinking "unapproved" thoughts with unknown results. Such a mind is quick to abandon something with high resistance and approach from a direction of common interest, low resistance and constructive solutions.

Part of the corruption in the country is a corruption of thoughts. Stupid people suit exploitative leaders. If I can bring up something I want done in a way that guarantees you measure it based on aspects I am prepared to defend, all the dissent in the world is actually my plan for getting my idea passed. At the very least I can make the dissent look uncivilized and against public interest and override it.

It is instinct that makes us oppose something. We register aspects in diverse ways, but if our thinking is limited, we are not able to express them in the blinkered view. Our arguments look stupid, and we are set up to fail. Yet, we cannot abandon them, because we experience their importance, even if we can't convey it.

Result? Stalemate. Lack of progress, sabotage of change, attacks on people threatening the status quo.

We have crises on every aspect a country can be in trouble in - economy, health, energy, human rights, security, agriculture, unemployment, education, media, censorship, terrorism, intelligence.... and more.

Our country is entering a dark, dark phase. And it is not just the economy, it is democracy itself. With diversity dead, democracy is rendered meaningless. Unless we are able to work functionally with diversity, we are going to stagnate to our death. It is a make or break time, and this is the great struggle facing all citizens of the country - how to break free of the limited perspectives and deprivation oriented defensive stands and really engage with all stakeholders to create solutions rather than victories at the cost of others.

For that, we need to take off the blinkers. I think this is urgent and important.